Transcript Title: Sustainable Livelihood approach for assessing

Sustainable Livelihood approach for assessing
community’s resilience to climate variability and
change /A case study from Sudan
Second International
Conference
on
Climate
Impacts Assessment (SICCIA)
June 28-July 2, 2004
Grainau, Germany
By
Dr.Balgis Osman Elasha
PI AIACC-AF 14 Project
The Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources
(HCENR) Sudan & Stockholm Environment Institute –
Boston Center (SEI_B)
1
Overview


Why SL?
Sustainable livelihood (SL)
–
–
–
–


2
conceptual framework
Basic definitions
SL assessment
Connection to adaptation
SL and Environmental management measures
An example from Sudan case studies conducted by
AIACC –AF14 project.
Why talk about Sustainable Livelihoods?





3
Urgent adaptation needs of most
vulnerable groups
Existence of local coping
strategies
Hard-won lessons from other (nonclimate) disciplines (e.g. disaster
mitigation, natural resource
management)
No-regrets options
Lack of connection between
community needs and the policy
process
Basic Definitions
1.Livelihoods are the ways people make a living, including how
they distribute their productive resources and the types of
activities in which they are engaged
2. Sustainable Livelihood
 The Brundtland Commission in 1987:Intrdoduced SL
in terms of resources ownership, access to basic needs
and livelihood security


4
The IISD: “SL concerned with people's capacities
to generate & maintain their means of living,
enhance their well- being, and that of future
generations.
The definition used by the UK's (DFID): A
livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets &
activities required for a means of living .
Basic definitions (Cont.):





5
Resilience – The capacity of a population to adapt to
environmental change such as extreme climatic events and
climate variability.
Adaptation: is the ability to respond and adjust to actual or
potential impacts of changing climate conditions in ways that
moderates harm or takes advantage of positive opportunities
Coping Strategies – The short-term responses to periodic
stress, such as the use of famine foods in drought.
Adaptive Strategies –Strategies that require people to
reorganize their livelihood systems in response to long-term
changes and challenges.
Security: The state of a community that can provide
safeguards for itself against social, economic and
environmental change
Livelihood assessment:
Livelihood assessment is a way of
looking at how an individual, a
household or a community behaves
under specific frame conditions.
How to understand livelihood
systems?
Through analysis of the impacts of
coping and adaptive strategies
pursued by individuals and
communities as a response to
external shocks and stresses such
as drought, civil strife and policy
failures

6
Connection to Adaptation-How?
The SL approach helps researchers to:
 Focus on most vulnerable people
 Assess their vulnerabilities and strengths
 Tap existing knowledge & ongoing efforts to
determine what works
 Enable community-driven strategies and actions;
ensure buy-in and longevity
 Ultimately… fortify against future climate-related
shocks
7
What types of measures are we
considering?
SL/Environmental Management
Measures (SL/EM): like
rangelands management, microcatchments restoration, soil
management, etc., each of which
involves an array of specific
measures (e.g., water harvesting,
intercropping, livestock
diversification, windbreak
construction, reforestation
8
Sudan’s Project:

Sudan AIACC Project “Environmental Strategies for Increasing
Human Resilience in Sudan: Lessons for Climate Change
Adaptation in North and East African”
Goal:
 to prove that certain SL/EM measures increase the resilience
of communities to climate related shocks
 establish that these measures are effective and should be
considered as climate change adaptation options that could be
included in the planning of national adaptation strategies.
 to explore what enables them to be effective – i.e., what factors
(participatory implementation, local governance, macroeconomic policies, etc.) made it possible for the measures to
be successful
9
How??
Case Studies were employed to explore example where
local knowledge (e.g. traditional, indigenous
autonomous and informal) and/ or external knowledge
(formal, technical, directed) has been applied within a
target community in the form of SL/NRM strategy to
enable the community to cope with or adapt to
climate–related stress. Each Case study will also
provide an assessment of the local and national
policies and conditions that support or inhibit the
measures
10
Sources of information:





11
community groups,
local, regional and
international NGOs;
government agencies;
university departments
and;
bilateral and multilateral
development agencies,
:
Pilot Case study
Pilot case study
To demonstrate the use of sustainable livelihood
framework for measuring the adaptive capacity
of local communities to climate change impacts
the following pilot case study was being
conducted under the umbrella of Sudan - AIACC
–AF14 project
Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation
for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity.
12
Objectives:
Twofold:
a) to sequester carbon through the implementation
of a sustainable, local-level natural resources
management system that prevents degradation,
rehabilitates or improves rangelands; and
b) to reduce the risks of production failure in a
drought-prone area by providing alternatives for
sustainable production, so that out-migration will
decrease and population will stabilize”
13
Pilot CS Cont.




14
Context: Villages in the drought-prone
area of Western Sudan
Approach: Community-Based Rangeland
Rehabilitation
Key Actors: Villages within Gireigikh rural
council, pilot project
Funding: UNDP/GEF
What happened?
A group of villages undertook a package of
SL measures, designed to regenerate
and conserve the degraded rangelands
upon which their community depends.








15
Community Organization
Alternative Livestock and Livestock
Management
Rural Energy Management
Replanting
Stabilization of sand dunes
Creation of windbreaks
Micro-lending for supplemental
income generation
What are the outcome of the pilot project (results from
evaluation report)

Community institutional structure created
 land-use master plans;
 oversight and mobilization structures

Rangeland rehabilitation measures implemented
 5 km of sand dunes re-vegetated
 195 km of windbreaks sheltering 130 farms
 Approximately 700 ha improved
 Livestock restocking
Community development underway
 2 revolving funds
 5 pastoral women’s groups focused on livestock
value-adding activities
 5 new irrigated gardens and wells
 Grain storage and seed credit program

16
Primary Assessment tool:
The primary tool employed in this assessment is the
sustainable livelihood impact assessment methods
for assessing project impacts on target
communities.
Objective: To measure the impact of the project
intervention on the community coping/adaptive
capacity through the employment of a range of
data collection methods, a combination of
quantitative and qualitative indicators.
 Community’s coping and adaptive capacities in the
face of climatic variability and extremes is used as
proxy for its level of coping and adaptive capacity
for future climate change
17
Methods used

Use of DFID SL model and notion of the five
capitals (natural, physical, human, social and
financial:

Within the SL framework the project employed the
Livelihood Assets Tracking (LAST) system to
measure changes in coping and adaptive capacity.
Use of word pictures by household to assess
their own vulnerability ,coping and adaptive
capacity to a climate-related impact.
Consultation with communities to develop
indicators of community resilience and construct
word pictures.
Use of stratified sampling methods to ensure
representation of a range of individuals and
household circumstances



18
Sustainable livelihoods capital assets
Natural capital
 Financial capital
 Physical capital
 Human capital
 Social capital

19
Word pictures:
are descriptions of HH
circumstances developed
in a participatory manner
with the community in
question.
-Best case”
“worse case” snapshot.
20
Development of indicators
Two types of indicators were identified:
1- Short-term indicators include:
- economic - e.g., crop productivity, livestock
productivity, local grain reserves;
- ecological - e.g., biomass, soil water balance; and
Social - e.g., household wealth and dislocation.
2- Longer-term resilience indicators which are more
qualitative, aimed at capturing intangibles such
as the level of economic, ecological and social
stability within a system or community
21
Preliminary list of generic indicators
includes:







22
Land degradation (slowed or reversed);
Condition of the vegetation cover (stabilized or
improved);
Soil and/or crop productivity (stabilized or
increased);
Water supply (stabilized or increased);
Average income levels (stabilized or increased);
Food stores (stabilized or increased);
Out-migration (slowed, stabilized, or reversed);
Outline of qualitative & quantitative
indicators for the SL






23
Natural Assets
Rangeland productivity
Rangeland carrying capacity
Plant species composition
Water sources,
quality and use
Access to Natural resources by marginal
community groups ( women, minority tribes,
poor)
Productivity of Natural Assets



24
Average production per unit area of
rangeland
No. of animals per unit area of rangeland
Yield from main crops
Production of vegetables and fruits from
women gardens
Physical assets





25
Management of water wells Maintenance of water
pumps
Grain stores (capacity and accessibility)
Grain mills (capacity and accessibility)
Energy conservation techniques (improved
stoves)
Effectiveness of management systems applied to
pasture, water, livestock etc…Availability of
spare parts
Financial Assets





26
Income generating activities
Income levels and stability
Revolving funds /amount of credit granted to
individuals
Savings
Accessibility of vulnerable groups to credit
(women, poor and Kawahla
Human (household) Assets




27
Ownership of assets
Skilled labors
Housing type
Access of marginal groups to education,
training and extension services
Social Assets indicators



28
Organizational set-up
(local village
committees)
Role of village
committees in the
decision making
process.
Membership to
organizations Sharing
of responsibility
Access to services





29
Extension
Health
Education
Training
Veterinary services
Policies and Institutions







30
Government institutions and polices in
relation to:
Taxes
Market prices
Incentives
Land tenure
Local level institutions
NGOs
Risks




31
Changing government policies
Out-migration by skilled people
Encroachment by other tribes into the
project area
Pressures on rangelands by intruding
nomads
Development of criteria and indicators
around the capital assets
Development of criteria and indicators around the capital assets:
Around each capital asset a set of criteria and indicators are developed as
tabulated below:
Capital
Dimension
Criteria
Indicators
assets
Productivity
1.Rangeland productivity
Area
of
improved
/
rehabilitated rangeland
2.Carrying capacity
-Animal units per average ha
Natural
capital
3.Forage production
-Average ton of dry matter
/ha per year
Equity
Access of marginal groups % of minorities (Kawahla)
to grazing allotments
tribes with access to grazing
allotments
Sustainability -Rangeland management
-Effectiveness
of
management practices
-Sustainability of range land
-% of agric. land been
transferred into rangeland,
-Rangeland quality
Abundance
of
desirable
plant species
Risks
32
-Pressures on rangeland
Frequency of nomads from
other areas encroachment
into the project RL.
Collecting data with WPs
Approach to survey/interviews:
Use household circumstances during signal event as basis of
comparison; compare with circumstances during recent or hypothetical
event
Use assessment sheets (one for each capital) as basis of interview
questions. For example:
“During the signal event (e.g., 1984 drought), what level of food
stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not,
how great was the deficit (in months)?
During the recent drought (post-SL activity) , what level of food
stores did you have (in months)? Were they sufficient? If not,
how great was the deficit (in months)?
On assessment sheet, record number associated with interviewee
responses to questions
From these responses, assemble word pictures for each interview
33
Resulting Word Pictures
A word picture of household’s access to natural resources (natural
capital)
Pre-SL Activity
•
Little or no land; one or two month's
food available from own land;
quality of land is poor, having red
soil with low fertility; land is located
on a slope in such a position that
rain water washes away the seed
sown and the top soil and hence
reduces its fertility; use of traditional
seeds; some have given away land
as collateral; no source of irrigation;
no land for growing fodder for
livestock; owns one or two
livestock; no milk produced; low
access to forest produce;
Adapted from Bond and Mukherjee (2002)
34
Post-SL Activity
More of black fertile soil; more land; grows
one's own fodder on one's own land;
fertile land with more moisture retention
power; more produce from land; grows
and sells cash crops; grows vegetables;
grows high yielding variety seeds; lends
seeds to others; irrigation facilities
available round the year; land is near
the forest; access to forest produce;
some have government permit to grow
opium; has many fruit trees; availability
of home grown food throughout the
year; many livestock, high returns from
livestock;
Preparation of a livelihood assets status framework matrix:
CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT SHEET: Natural Capital
Criteria
Productivity:
Rangelands
productivity
Indicators
Worst case
 (Area of
90%
Degraded
improved/
rehabilitate
d
Moderate
Best case
Excellent
>90%
rehabilitated
rangelands
Carrying
capacity
35
AU/ha/year
5-10
AU/ha/year
to 15 10
AU/ha/year
to 20 15
AU/ha/yea
r
> 20
AU/ha/year
Sample of the results in graph form
:
Productivity:
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Natural capital:
36
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
rehabilitated
land
carrying
capacity
Indicators
forage
production
Situation of each indicator (%)
Financial Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
amount of
credit granted
to individuals
income
sources
income
stability
Indicators
37
income
sufficiency
Situation of each Indicator (%)
Human Capital
38
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
no. of
trained
CAHW
capacity
of vet.
services
state of
education
Indicators
state of
health
state of
training
state of
extension
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Physical Capital
39
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
no. of
no. of
no. of water
established established
pumps
grain mills grain stores
Indicators
Situation of each indicator (%)
Social Capital
40
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
effects of WIG
on availability of
veg. Fruits &
agri. goods
effect of
committees
Indicators
area of WIG
Sustainability:
Situation of each y indicator (%)
Natural Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
transition from application of
agri. land to
sustainable
grazing land grazing system
quality of
animal
production
Indicators
41
range land
quality
Situation of each indicator (%)
Financial Capital
100
80
Before
After
60
40
20
0
availability suitability of effectiveness
of
local
of credit
information institutions repayment
Indicators
42
support of
credit
systems
support of
government
policy
Situation of each indicator (%)
Human Capital
100
Before
After
80
60
40
20
0
rate of
% of farmers
rate of
availability of
utilization of who completely adoption of drugs (human,
improved
abandoned
building mud
animals)
charcoal stoves crop production walled houses
Indicators
43
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Physical Capital
100
80
Before
After
60
40
20
0
effective
management
system applied to
water wells
no. of people
trained on
maintenance for
water pumps
Indicators
44
availability of spar
parts
Situation of each indicator
(%)
Social Capital
100
80
60
40
20
0
Before
After
use of mud
walled
public
building
government
support to
local
institutions
Indicators
45
relation
capacity of
between
committees
committees to perform
& local
its task
government
institutions
Equity

Chances of marginalized groups (women, poor,
kawahla tribe) increased significantly particularly
with regard to:

access to grazing land
access to credit
access to social services
access to training
participation in decision-making




46
Overall change in the resilience of the five
capitals
Before
Natural
36
Physical
30
Financial
22
Human
24
Social
32
Total
47
29
After
76
66
72
72
74
Change
40
36
50
48
42
72
43
%Change
75
65
71
71
73
8
Policies and institutions
The micro-policies in the project area were influenced
by the following bodies:
 (a) Committees- Sustainability of activities
 (b) NGOs (SECS &CARE International)-Awareness
 (C) Traditional leaders: The Traditional
administration played major role in natural resources
management for very long period in different parts of
Sudan particularly in traditional areas (Social
security , Nafir etc..)
48
Conclusions
Tapping the SL Approach: What can it do for adaptation?
Using this as a tool in adaptation assessment can help to:

49

Enable national planning processes to effectively consider
the most vulnerable groups; articulate unique local
vulnerabilities

Identify locally-relevant resilience-building options

Build understanding of micro- and macro-level enabling
conditions for adaptation

Build local adaptation awareness and engage local NGOs
(potential adaptation project implementers
Thanks for your patience
50